Security Resilience

CVE-2023-49610

Machinesense Feverwarn Firmware

Published
01 February 2024
Modified
21 November 2024
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 8.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0039 31th percentile
Risk Priority 59 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2023-49610 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Machinesense Feverwarn Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 31th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

MachineSense FeverWarn Raspberry Pi-based devices lack input sanitization, which could allow an attacker on an adjacent network to send a message running commands or could overflow the stack.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-49617Same product: Machinesense Feverwarn
CVE-2023-46706Same product: Machinesense Feverwarn
CVE-2023-6221Same product: Machinesense Feverwarn
CVE-2023-47867Same product: Machinesense Feverwarn
CVE-2023-49115Same product: Machinesense Feverwarn
CVE-2025-0814Shared CWE-20
CVE-2023-48310Shared CWE-20
CVE-2025-60537Shared CWE-20
CVE-2025-59940Shared CWE-20
CVE-2023-38495Shared CWE-20

Affected Assets

machinesense
feverwarn firmware
all versions

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

blocks

A.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.

blocks

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

blocks

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

finds

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

Hardening callouts derived

DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.

References